IFI faces a grilling over governance collapse, uninsured vehicles, prosecution failures, and contradictory testimony before the Public Accounts Committee
On Thursday, 04 December, the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) convened to scrutinise the systemic failures within Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), leading to an extraordinary and often antagonistic session.
Witnesses from the IFI executive faced intense questioning over a litany of issues, including a near-total collapse of governance, an uninsured vehicle scandal, the withdrawal of dozens of prosecution cases, and significant irregularities concerning executive pay and property management.
The proceedings, based on the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General, repeatedly highlighted a lack of adequate and appropriate control within the organisation, which, in the words of the C&AG, “seriously undermines public confidence in IFI’s ability to carry out the important functions with which it is charged.”
The Collapse of Authority and Organisational Chaos
Mr. Seamus McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, introduced the session by outlining the foundational crisis that precipitated the current state of affairs.
He noted a sequence of unprecedented resignations from the IFI board:
“The chairperson of the IFI board resigned in April 2022,” Mr. McCarthy told the committee. “A new chairperson resigned in January 2023, along with four further resignations, effectively rendering the board unable to reach a quorum.”
This catastrophic failure of oversight meant the remaining board members had to be stood down by the Minister in February 2023, paving the way for the appointment of statutory governors.
This governance vacuum immediately translated into serious operational and legal failures. Mr. McCarthy detailed that IFI discovered in March 2023 “that formal delegated authority from the board allowing its officers to initiate prosecutions was not in place.” This fundamental administrative failure meant IFI “had to withdraw many live prosecution cases, creating a risk of financial loss and additional legal costs.”
An Cathaoirleach John Brady set the tone for the hearing, repeatedly stressing the committee’s responsibility to address the core issues of governance, internal control procedures, and value for money.
Deputy Brady noted the historical precedent for IFI’s struggles, stating that the situation has been compounded by “the breakdown of governance in 2021-2023,” which he insisted must be “urgently addressed to make the organisation fit to fulfil its role of protecting, conserving and developing our inland fisheries.”
The Uninsured Vehicle Scandal and Insurance Failures
One of the most concerning revelations was the mismanagement of the IFI vehicle fleet, specifically the administrative error that led to some vehicles being uninsured.
The investigation into a road traffic accident in August 2021 involving an IFI employee driving an uninsured vehicle became the focus of prolonged questioning, revealing contradictions and a lack of transparency from the executive.
Deputy Eoghan Kenny challenged the IFI witnesses on the handling of the incident. He asked Mr. Michael Cusack, Field Services Manager, “Why did IFI not inform the Gardaí or the employee immediately upon discovering the insurance lapse?” Mr. Cusack admitted that while IFI had notified the insurers on the day of the incident, it was not until “mid-November that they confirmed the decline of cover.”
The gravity of IFI’s inaction was highlighted when Deputy Kenny put it to Mr. Cusack:
“IFI allowed a staff member to receive a summons from An Garda Síochána regarding no insurance even though the IFI was acutely aware of the fact that the vehicle was not insured.”
When asked why IFI failed to produce the official documentation from the insurers to the Gardaí in November 2021, Mr. Cusack stated:
“We were not aware we had a legal obligation to do so.”
The committee expressed deep concern that a state body charged with enforcing fisheries law would knowingly allow an employee to face a serious criminal charge due to the organisation’s administrative failure and then claim ignorance of the legal obligation to correct the record with law enforcement.
Contradictions and Credibility Issues
The most damaging sequence of the hearing involved Acting CEO Mr. Barry Fox’s contradictory testimony regarding an external investigation into a protected disclosure concerning the uninsured vehicle incident.
Deputy Kenny first asked Mr. Fox if he had seen the findings of the external investigation commissioned by the Department. Mr. Fox initially replied:
“I can confirm that I have had no sight of that investigation or the findings from it.”
Pressed on why, as head of the organisation, he was unaware of findings regarding a serious protected disclosure matter, Mr. Fox insisted:
“I have not seen those findings.”
This denial of knowledge stretched the committee’s patience, leading to a suspension of the meeting to allow the IFI executive to confer and clarify.
Upon returning, Mr. Fox delivered a statement that directly contradicted his earlier testimony, confirming that he had, in fact, been present when the report was discussed.
“To answer Deputy Kenny’s question on the report from the Department,” Mr. Fox stated, “there was a report from the Department that came in in February of this year. The audit and risk committee, ARC, was tasked with considering the findings from it.
“They accepted the first two, which was that IFI had no insurance on the vehicle. They refuted the position that IFI knowingly allowed an employee to present insurance to An Garda Síochána.”
Deputy James Geoghegan immediately seized on this glaring inconsistency, asking whom Mr. Fox had contacted during the break. Mr. Fox admitted he “rang the compliance officer.”
Deputy Geoghegan then questioned the credibility of the earlier denial:
“Earlier on, I asked everybody here what knowledge they had in relation to this. Mr. Fox said he had no knowledge… Now he is saying he was at the meeting when it was disclosed to the board.” Mr. Fox attempted to explain the discrepancy by stating, “It was something that was not in my head at the time.”
Deputy Geoghegan concluded that the executive’s testimony brought into question the “credibility of a lot of what we have heard here today” and did “nothing to restore confidence in the organisation.” The repeated contradiction on a key governance document underscored the broader control issues plaguing the IFI.
Wasted Costs: Withdrawn Prosecutions and Legal Fees
The committee turned its attention to the direct financial impact of the governance collapse, specifically the 61 prosecution cases that had to be withdrawn because the IFI executive lacked the necessary delegated authority from the board.
Deputy Grace Boland questioned the validity of the warrants held by the prosecuting officers. Mr. Fox clarified the technical point of failure:
“The prosecution officials had valid warrants. The organisation at the executive level did not have the delegated authority to approve and bring forward the prosecution.” He confirmed the astonishing figure that “61 cases had to be withdrawn” and that the associated legal “cost to date is just above €230,000.”
Deputy Séamus McGrath pressed the witnesses on the full financial picture, pointing out the lost revenue from fines. He estimated the lost income to be “between €30,000 to €50,000 in addition to the legal fees” already incurred.
Mr. Fox conceded that for one larger case still pending settlement, which involved a “serious breach” where they would have expected a “significant fine,” the costs were still being negotiated.
The total financial loss, therefore, will ultimately exceed the quarter of a million euro confirmed for withdrawn cases and associated fees. The revelation that basic administrative oversight—the granting of delegated authority—could lead to such a major haemorrhaging of public funds became a running theme of dissatisfaction among committee members.
Executive Pay and Bizarre Employment Costs
The financial scrutiny extended to the arrangements surrounding the former CEO, particularly the payments made while he was on leave. An Cathaoirleach John Brady questioned the “bizarre” payment structure, noting the former CEO “finished employment in June of this year but had been on leave since March 2024.”
Ms. Suzanne Campion, Head of Finance, detailed the remuneration schedule, which baffled the committee. She confirmed the former CEO was “on full pay until 3 June and moved to half pay from 4 June to 4 September. He was then on full pay until he finished up on 4 June 2025.”
An Cathaoirleach Brady demanded the rationale behind someone going from full pay to half pay and then having it fully restored. Ms. Campion stated that the decision was a matter for the board, and she had “no background on the decision.”
Mr. Fox likewise claimed he was “not aware of the reasons behind the leave” or the complex arrangement. The executive’s inability to explain a significant expenditure of public money on a former employee’s extended, remunerated leave added to the committee’s concern regarding internal controls.
Further financial questions arose regarding the former CEO’s subsistence claims. The C&AG reported that “€7,972 was claimed in respect of trips to headquarters after the CEO’s work base was changed to Ballyshannon” without formal board approval.
Mr. Fox confirmed that only “€1,041.08 was repaid.” When asked by Deputy Albert Dolan why the full amount was not recouped, Mr. Fox again replied he was “not aware, as it was a matter for the appointees at the time.”
The implication was that thousands of euros in potentially unauthorised expenses had been effectively waived by a previous administration without clear justification.
Aasleagh Lodge: Employee Rental and Shared Income
Another example of poor financial control highlighted by the C&AG involved the management of IFI’s property assets, specifically Aasleagh Lodge and its cottages. The committee questioned an unusual arrangement where an employee leased the cottages.
Deputy Cathy Bennett questioned Ms. Campion about the financial details, who confirmed that the employee earned “€77,000 in rental income” which was shared with IFI. Deputy Bennett asked the core question:
“Why would IFI share income from its own property with an employee?” Ms. Campion offered a highly unsatisfying answer: “I do not know and nobody here knows the answer. The people who agreed the deal are all gone.”
Mr. Fox offered a brief explanation, noting the employee “was charged with renting them out as holiday lets and paying IFI a share of that money.”
Deputy Bennett pressed on the propriety and potential legal exposure of the arrangement, asking if this arrangement did not constitute fraud.
Ms. Campion insisted it was a written agreement, though she admitted it was intended to be “short-term” but had run on until 2021. The lack of institutional knowledge regarding how public assets were managed, resulting in a large private income stream for a staff member, was met with incredulity by the committee.
Additional Costs and Personnel Issues
The scrutiny broadened to include other areas of spending and personnel management. Deputy Cathy Bennett highlighted a significant sum spent on external expertise, noting that “€2 million was spent on consultants and legal fees in 2023.” Ms. Campion confirmed the breakdown, specifying that “€918,000 was spent on legal fees alone,” underscoring the high cost of IFI’s operational and legal instability.
Deputy Joanna Byrne raised the issue of Dormant Accounts Fund mismanagement, where IFI had to repay €28,000.
Ms. Campion explained that weaknesses included a grant awarded to a club that “did not have a bank account.”
While she admitted they “departed from procedures,” she insisted that the money “got to the right place.”
Mr. Fox also confirmed that, following scrutiny, the number of credit cards in the organisation had been reduced drastically from 17 to five.
The committee also addressed several adverse findings against IFI by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Deputy Aidan Farrelly raised a case involving the unfair dismissal of an employee with 37 years of service, which cost the organisation “€38,500 plus legal fees.”
The WRC ruling itself was damning, stating the employee was to be “taken out by hook or by crook.” Mr. Fox, who signed the dismissal on appeal, defended his decision, stating:
“The primary reason we took the decision was the use of equipment while on suspension and the allowance of a taxed vehicle to be used on the public highway by a juvenile.”
When asked if he would apologise to the man whose life was ruined, Mr. Fox stated firmly, “I stand over that decision.”
Deputy Farrelly also brought up a separate WRC ruling where a staff member was asked to chaperone a director’s child.
Mr. Fox confirmed the child was his son and that the request was made by the previous head of operations. When challenged on whether this was a breach of child protection guidelines, Mr. Fox replied:
“I do not see the relevance of this… It was a very innocent thing where somebody was asked to take a person for a walk down town at lunchtime.”
Deputy Farrelly maintained that asking a subordinate to perform duties outside their role involving a child created a power dynamic issue and potential vulnerability, a position Mr. Fox disagreed with, maintaining, “I do not see an issue with it. I really do not.”
Operational Performance Amidst Crisis
Despite the torrent of governance and financial controversies, Mr. Fox attempted to portray IFI as an effective operational body. He insisted that IFI “is a very high-performing organisation that punches well above its weight in fisheries protection.”
He cited that in 2024, IFI “initiated 99 prosecutions, all of which were successful,” in a bid to counter the earlier revelations of 61 withdrawn cases from the previous year.
However, deputies raised the issue of the devastating fish kill in the Blackwater river, where 32,000 fish died. Mr. Fox admitted that no source of the pollution was found.
He explained, “The nature of water pollution is that it can be discharged into a water body days before anybody becomes aware of it.”
Deputy Séamus McGrath remarked that the “lack of any lead or suspicion regarding the cause does not instil much confidence in the general public.”
Deputy Bennett also highlighted the long-term operational failure of preserving stocks, pointing out the “catastrophic decline in salmon stocks, which have fallen from 1.76 million in 1975 to 153,460 in 2025.”
Mr. Fox attributed this to environmental pressures and water quality, stating, “We do not blame anglers or commercial fishermen, but we have to take action to try to arrest the decline.”
Conclusion: A Lack of Confidence
The hearing ended with a damning summation from the Committee of Public Accounts regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the state of the organisation.
An Cathaoirleach John Brady stated his profound dissatisfaction with the process:
“I find this meeting the most extraordinary in terms of the lack of preparedness for it on such an important issue and the drip-feeding of very important information before the committee.”
Referring to the contradiction regarding the external investigation report, Deputy Geoghegan reiterated his loss of confidence and formally requested copies of the disputed documents and board minutes. He stressed:
“I do not think it has done anything to restore confidence in the organisation.”
In a telling final exchange, An Cathaoirleach Brady asked Mr. Fox:
“Did the witnesses get media training before they came before us today?”
When Mr. Fox confirmed they had, Brady remarked pointedly:
“Maybe that should be reassessed, because certainly it has been difficult trying to extrapolate some information.”
The committee agreed to seek all follow-up documentation regarding the disputed investigation findings, board minutes, and all matters related to costs and insurance failures to continue its inquiry into the organisation’s future viability.
